The battles between supporters of proprietary colleges and their detractors, both in and out of government, continue to rage in the nation’s capital and in communities and policy organizations across the nation. Judging by the level of vitriol being directed against for-profit schools, one would be justified in concluding critics suspect them of harboring terrorist cells and offering instruction in improvised explosive devices.

In fact, scratch the surface of the debate, and one quickly discovers it appears to be driven as much by jealousy and a desire for headlines as bona fide concern for educational standards.

Revelations involving an “exposé” of proprietary college abuses in recruiting and graduating by the Government Accountability Office that was released in August 2010, suggest that critics have gone too far in their zeal to attack these schools. They’ve begun losing credibility. In fact, concern about the manner in which the study was conducted has already led at least one House committee to launch an investigation of the GAO investigators.

More important, interest in this brewing GAO scandal is not limited to Republican lawmakers. It is bipartisan.

In December, a half-dozen House members, from both political parties and representing at least two key committees, wrote the comptroller general (who heads the GAO), voicing their concerns. In a strong letter, they demanded the agency provide substantive answers to evidence that the report was biased against proprietary schools in its methodology and conclusions.

The lawmakers wrote that the report was so openly unfair and poorly constructed that GAO was forced to issue a revision in November, removing many inflammatory accusations.

The group of members signing the Dec. 21, 2010, letter included Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), incoming chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), who now heads the Education and the Workforce Committee. These two panels exercise substantive and oversight jurisdiction over proprietary schools in which federal money is involved. The GAO ignores their concerns at its peril.

Issa has followed up with a letter to the GAO investigative office responsible for the 2010 report. His actions are a potent counterpoint to moves by the Department of Education, which is reportedly close to issuing stringent rules that would severely limit the ability of proprietary schools to secure federal backing for loans to their students.

Many of these students are low-income and minority, and rely on government-backed loans and grants as the only way to gain a college education. Issa’s moves also signal a clear break with his Senate counterpart, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who has been leading the fight against proprietary schools in that chamber.

Proprietary schools are fighting back to set the record straight. Norton/Norris Inc., a consulting firm hired by a group of these schools, earlier this month released its own investigative study. The firm found that the vast majority of allegations in the GAO report could not be verified. Only 14 of the 65 findings could be confirmed, according to Kelly Field, who reported on this in the Jan. 13 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Undeterred, critics of proprietary schools, including the Center for American Progress, continue their attacks. One group, Campus Progress, has gone so far as to attack the widely respected president of the National Urban League, Mark Morial, for his support of proprietary schools.

Such incessant negative attacks are likely to spur further nonpartisan actions on Capitol Hill, rather than fuel the flames that critics of proprietary schools crave. Whether this will halt, or at least slow, moves by the Department of Education, however, remains to be seen. But the change in leadership in the House certainly should give the department pause.

Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) served in Congress from 1995 to 2003. He is teaching a once-a-week seminar at a for-profit school, Atlanta’s John Marshall School of Law.